considers altering entire network stack to trick a Switch 2 into thinking it never leaves EU soil
"Nah, I'll probably just not buy one. Fuck em."
considers altering entire network stack to trick a Switch 2 into thinking it never leaves EU soil
"Nah, I'll probably just not buy one. Fuck em."
better consumer protection says what
It says "Sign the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative if you can"
Still would be EU only.
prevent access to online services...that's all they should be allowed to do. I don't think I'd be able hold back on any company that decided what I do with MY hardware.
If they going to brick the console they better refund the money.
Online services includes firmware updates, and many new first party games require the newest firmware as of release to be installed
Those do typically come with the firmware update bundled in the cart.
Ironically this is a security measure because it also closes security loopholes and jailbreaking exploits.
Of course for that you need a cartridge that actually has something in it or whatever, but that's the idea. You're more likely to have a firmware update in a physical game than the full playable game.
Checking, downloading and installing irmware updates is the only thing that works on a banned console. Of course they are not allowing it because they're nice, just because they want to close eventual exploits
Don't they include the firmware updates on the game carts now?
You mean the game carts that only include the key to download the game?
No, I thought some game carts actually had system updates included on the cart that would install if your system was offline, for example. Looks like this is only for ps4/ps5 actually, though.
Nintendo has pulled some shady shit with this system release... While it's possible for the manufacturer to put the games on the carts, and apparently some are... They have the ability to put just a key on the cart which allows you to download the game... But it still requires you to have the cart in your system to play it..
At least from my understanding...
Yes that is a thing. The game cart basically acts as a digital key and you have to download the game. You also have to have the game cart in the system to play the downloaded game. Thankfully the boxes that have this are clearly labeled. One benefit of this is you can resell these games which you couldn't previously do for any digital game. Not a fan of the practice and having plastic junk for what is essentially a digital game, though. Seems these virtual game carts are selling poorly so hopefully publishers will start using actual full games on carts going forward.
That wasn't what I was referring to in my original comment, though.
That is what they do. It's an online ban, you can still use a banned console offline.
False, too many games require internet access for the first start to download the actual games
Banned console = you can only play 1st party games as almost all 3rd party devs ship empty cartridges with no game inside
Untrue, full console disabling is possible rendering it unusable for any content online or offline
They've only ever done online bans. There's a lot of misinformation being spread around about bricks, but that isn't what is happening.
What they have done (so far) and what they are capable of doing are two entirely different things.
No one has had their console remotely bricked. If it happens, we can talk, but until then you're just getting mad at imagined hypotheticals.
I found one of the many for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqFY3rICDWs at minute 7.15
He can't play Yakuza 0 and puyo puyo tetris, because it can't download the mandatory update, it can't launch games. Technically it's not bricked, but because it can't launch legally purchased games, it's effectively bricked.
It doesn't even show the game icon on the screen!
That is a ban from online services. The word 'brick' has a specific meaning, this isn't a brick.
If a device has a single purpose, which is playing games, and it can't play such game, how it's not a brick?
"It's not a brick, it's just a paperweight!"
Some games might not be playable. But other games still are. Calling the system a paperweight is not accurate.
Your comment, paraphrased:
Nintendo is Nintendo and they can never be wrong, I will defend them and ask for proof. Then deny any proof given.
You asked proof of a brick, I showed you proof of a brick.
Ah yes, sorry, it's not a brick. Because it turns on and, because it doesn't even show the icon of those legitimately purchased games that are unwrapped in front of the camera, you can go to settings, then you can, uh, toggle between dark mode and light mode. Yes, totally not a brick. People pay $450 for a game console not for playing games, just to stare at the empty screen.

Worst argument ever.
Why wait for it to happen instead of acting proactively?
Why did they feel the need to implement that in A their legal speak and B partly acted on it (users of the MIG-cartridge got already hit by that).
Because they will at some point use the power. Why even risk that?
Because regardless of what some boilerplate legalese says, they are instead doing online bans. Fixating on a hypothetical when it's the opposite of what's actually happening borders on misinformation.
Scroll back up, this conversation started with the top comment saying it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and then y'all come at me saying it's actually bricks. It's online bans.
The actual text of the EULA states:
"You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.”
So no, it's not misinformation, Nintendo is straight up telling you legally that they can and will do this. This is not a hypothetical. They may not have done it yet but there is no uncertain terminology around their ability and willingness to do so. The fact that they can even threaten this in their EULA is a huge warning flag that everyone in this thread is correct to be upset about.
Because regardless of what some boilerplate legalese says, they are instead doing online bans.
Let me rewind to the start of this conversation.
prevent access to online services...that's all they should be allowed to do. I don't think I'd be able hold back on any company that decided what I do with MY hardware.
That is what they do. It's an online ban, you can still use a banned console offline.
Before it happens they put it in EULA which they did.
You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.
It couldn't be any clearer.
You're fixating on legalese boilerplate, I'm talking about what they're actually doing.
Go back to the start of this conversation. OP said it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and you're umackshuallying over what hasn't actually happened.
The "legalese" explicitly stated in clear words that they have right to brick your device. If they had no intention of doing it they wouldn't put that in.
This was added so once they brick it they can argue in court that you agreed to this when purchased your switch.
OP said it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and you're umackshuallying over what hasn't actually happened.
If it ever happens, we can resume this conversation, but until then?
What do you expect? Disable console first, then put things in EULA?
Why put something like this in EULA if there's no intention of doing it, especially as they didn't put it for EU where such practice is outright illegal?
You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.
It seems hard to believe, but that's the threat being made. Time will tell whether that's bluster or if they're really prepared to do so.
Nintendo has track record making threats that are not technically feasible, like if a PR/LAW person has written it with no knowledge on what technically really is possible. They just formulate it, so that they have the most possibilities later on the law site.
They would even include coming to and get the physical switch from you, if lawfully feasible. And they would only check later if the physical act is really feasible for them after.
The fact that they are doing online bans instead is how we know.
But like I said, tell you what, if it happens then we can talk.
The vast majority of games require being online at least once to run. This is enough of a loss if function to be considered unusable.
Well, their shitty attitude towards consumers is why I won’t be getting a switch 2. So they can try bricking my asshole.
I secretly hope they screw up and brick all the switch 2 devices by uploading a bad update, and are forced to send replacement units, potentially crippling finances of their company.
Doubt it'll happen, and I'd feel bad for people and kids just wanting to enjoy some Mario and stuff on their weekends (which makes me sorta hope it doesn't happen at the same time), but... Nintendo needs to be hit very hard for their constant BS.
Or some “bad actor” will figure out a way to upload and push the bricking update. Forcing probably a recall and/or a costly class action. Maybe that will make them think about putting a kill switch on there in the first place.
In 2008, someone did the math. Just from 2 years of Wii sales, just the hardware, not the games, Nintendo could stay afloat for 163 years based on the ecconomy at the time.
So, lets adjust for inflation that we know it is today, and call it 110 years.
I don't think it's been 110 years since 2006. I could be wrong though. Covid screwed up everybodies internal clock.
yo ho, all hands, hoist the colors high,
heave ho, thieves and beggars, never shall we die.
The current management of nintendo will never figure it out. Piracy is the competition. It's not about getting the thing for free, it's about getting a better service. I'd buy mario 3 again (again) if that meant I'd get a rom I could run on my pc through FCEUX and enjoy all the features/enhancements that software offers. There's a handful of gamecube games available on switch2, but all of them are better through Dolphin than what official hardware can offer. Nintendo's refund policy is a joke. The eshop is unpleasant to use. Even ignoring all of that, the original switch only had a handful of actual first party titles, not enough to justify the console's price tag (and each those were merely ok, not enough to justify buying a console for one game).
sega sells their games on steam, and while I don't like the emulator they use I can at least say that I own a legal copy of sonic spinball.
Because in the US, you guys aren't really consumers (which would give you a status), you're merely walking and vaguely sentient (hopefully enough to click on "add to cart") wallets that the corporations pluck money from at every opportunity. This is your legally enforced reality.
Nintendo: "you bought our hardware, but we will brick it if you don't use it in exactly the way we like!"
Nah, they can, but likely won't risk it w/European owners’ “rights.”
Change the headline a little bit.
"litigation" is not really how we usually talk about consumer's rights in Europe though. As the article clearly states:
the legal framework in Europe is much more protective of users. The corresponding laws understand that disabling a device for unauthorized access to software is an excessive and illegal measure.
It's the same with my American friends who does not understand that we have house loans, not mortgage. They still call it mortgage, but that's a completely different setup altogether!
Edited, and quoted, because I can see European states arbitrarily litigate rights.
That's ... not how it works. If they did brick the consoles Europeans own they'd likely be breaking EU wide laws, which at the end would end up with the highest court in Europe - the EUCJ.
There's nothing arbitrarily about this. Our consumer protection laws are quite strong.
I started pirating my Nintendo needs last generation and it runs so much better. Never buying from this anti-consumer company again.
top 81 comments